on the demise of kings langley steiner school

I hesitate to write about this, like I hesitate to write about anything these days. But the fact that Kings Langley Steiner School was finally closed following several inspections and the school administration’s failure to come to terms with and to rectify the previously identified deficiencies, means that it’s not just a question of accusations thrown around by angry parents, or the like, anymore; there’s the fact of an actual closure. There have been numerous reports in the media about it over the last year, but I haven’t collected them; I’ve just read them, and sometimes thought that some (not all, obviously) of it is simply a matter of Steiner education being Steiner education. Some of the things that have emerged are a bit… well, you know, these were all things that were known all the time. For example, the Steiner School Handbook has hardly been a secret — I know for a fact it came to the attention of education authorities about ten years ago, before public funding was granted to a few Steiner schools — and it’s been there all the time for anyone who cared. Specific Steiner practices and traditions are discussed as if they’re a complete surprise. I remember, vaguely, one newspaper was making a huge thing out of Steiner teachers’ practice of doing home-visits and being outraged about teachers giving children chocolate. Both these things, it seems, are today thought of as gateways to heavier types of child abuse. I can’t quite wrap my mind around this way of thinking. There were a lot more far-out things in the Handbook, but I guess when I can’t wrap my mind around the danger of chocolate gifts, others may find the pedagogical role of angels a bit hard to digest, thus simply ignoring it.

In any case, that stuff may have had little to do with the particular failings of Kings Langley, which, it appears, has been governed badly over a number of years, with a college of teachers and staff that has failed to meet any sort of external standards, actively resisted school inspections and ignored all the warnings that things were not going well. I think Jeremy Smith’s text and Tom Hart Shea’s comments (both on that text and on a previous one) sum it up. I put more weight on their views, than I would to anonymous disgruntled parents, because I understand how much they both would have wanted to be able to write something very different about that school. Their criticisms are quite severe; and their level of understanding of what went wrong is probably deeper than for the ordinary, let’s say, parent, given their degree of involvement. There are also strange things… In my wildest imagination, I couldn’t have imagined this:

I remember one upper school teacher devising a show for pupils to perform, which he called: “Ofsted – the musical.” The climactic moment of the piece was an Ofsted inspector being done to death with the copper rods from eurythmy lessons.

Maybe funny (you never know, perhaps this upper school teacher was a comic genius) but also… weird. The show is, of course, just an intriguing detail in a wider picture of decline; the rest of the less amusing failings, having a concrete impact on the running of the school, are more important to the school’s final fate. But still…

I’m not sure whether to find it ironic or just amusing, but the criticism now delivered by Jeremy Smith, former information officer of the Steiner Waldorf School Fellowship and formerly an eager soldier in the fight against criticism of waldorf schools, basically targets waldorf schools on similar grounds that the rest of us were trying to do when he (and some others) tried to combat us almost a decade ago. It may not always look that way, I mean similar, if you view it superficially, but I think many of the failings that critics were then pointing at had similar origins to the failings that Jeremy Smith reports. What people were seeing, when comparing their experiences, was that behind individual failings were (often? sometimes? I don’t know) systematic failings that were in some interesting ways universal, that is, there were likenesses all over the world. It’s hard to resist the temptation to tie this to, among other things, what Jeremy (and Tom) writes about the dysfunctional role played by a College of Teachers that lacked competence or even willingness to handle the school professionally. Other comments in the blog threads suggest that (unsurprisingly) Kings Langley is far from alone.

To the credit of Jeremy Smith, he has since amended his view of those unwanted  criticisms of waldorf schools. He now writes:

… I became increasingly aware of the criticisms of Rudolf Steiner and Steiner Waldorf schools that were at that time starting to be widely disseminated online. I was upset by many of these criticisms, which did not accord with my understanding of Steiner or my experience of Waldorf schools. The sheer viciousness of the many misrepresentations I saw online led me to engage with some of these critics, in what with hindsight I now regard as naïve and well-meaning attempts to increase understanding and put the record straight. Today I would claim to have a more nuanced view of these criticisms, some of which were undoubtedly justified.

While I don’t believe — I really don’t — that every criticism is worth taking seriously (some are even based upon misunderstandings of what Steiner education is, albeit a misunderstanding that the Steiner movement is complicit in, for which it deserves criticism…), I think that many things that were said by critics back then would have been rather good (if I dare say so) for the Steiner waldorf movement to reflect upon rather than to brush aside or even to try to silence or to shut down. Back then, I don’t think any one of us actually thought that, ten years along the line, one of the most prestigious and oldest Steiner schools in Britain would be forced to close. I’m certain it would have been seen as a victory by the most “vicious” of critics — but also utopian. Interestingly, the schools downfall was entirely its own fault, and came at a time when external criticism (or “vicious” writings of former parents or students), and even more so criticism that had any substance or analysis to it (rather than being just complaints), had dwindled to almost nothing. And it will, I believe, have an impact on the Steiner movement, at least in Britain, though considering the role of the College of Teachers and the traditional but often dysfunctional arrangement for governing waldorf schools, perhaps schools in other parts of the world should take heed too.

9 thoughts on “on the demise of kings langley steiner school

  1. In those far off times when Thetis Mercurio swam across the sea to visit the wise polar hermit in the ethereal kiosk, I always felt that much of what you wrote was fair and indeed the Steiner movement should have seriously considered it. Thank you, Alicia.
    This is a very sad time for all the children, parents, teachers and other employees of the school.

  2. Thank you, Tom! Those were lovely days! I feel very nostalgic now.

    Yes, I think they would have been better off for at least considering that some of the criticism — even some of what wasn’t presented, er, politely — might be valid, because some of it was recurring, and because many people said the same things… Not everything is worth taking on board once you’ve considered it, obviously, but it was always as if they had decided from the beginning that anybody who left or, even worse, uttered criticism of any kind, must be deluded, evil, et c. As if it was so unthinkable that there were things that could be done better… I mean, to be so totally shut off to the mere possibilty that to *some* of the criticism, even the angriest, there might be something of value — that it might be telling them something, sometimes just — very simply — that they were failing to communicate what they were doing and why. You can’t please everyone, but that doesn’t mean that what people say is always wrong. Sometimes it seemed as if the Steiner movement believed it somehow didn’t belong to the real world, where there are rules and where things you do or say have consequences.

  3. After many years I finally looked up The New School in Kings Langley as a former alumnus… I think that what horrified me the most about the whole thing is that “handbook”,
    I had no idea!

    Definitely very upsetting and I would like to find out more about exactly what happened.

    From what I have learned so far though, I have to say that it is a relief that the school has closed; particularly because it is part of my past.
    I am sorry to have to say this considering some of the people who were so kind to me as a young homesick boarding school student.

  4. Hello Melissa and thank for your comment! The rather spectacular handbook was a particularly, uhm, fascinating read for me too — though I was a pupil in another Steiner school in a different country… It does shed a certain light on one’s experience as a child, I’d say.

  5. Melissa, I was your upper school class teacher when you were a border. I hope yu arewell. my wfe and I now live in Ireland with our for kids and ten grandchildren.

  6. thanks. its been many years but my time as class teacher from 1972 to 1978 was in my recollection a great time for me and my wife. I lived in a little house on the grounds behind a large hedge. it had previously been the home of juliette and vera Compton Burnett – two firy godmothers for my son who was born there.

please leave a howl, a bark, a growl, a tail-wag or a comment! (comments are moderated, thus it might take a while for them to appear on the blog)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s